ArticleLa Radiologia medica2025
Accuracy of abbreviated magnetic resonance compared to 3-dimensional mammography and ultrasound in early detection of breast cancer.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abbreviated MRI Protocols in Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Radiological Assessment After Pancreaticoduodenectomy for a Precision Approach to Managing Complications: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study is to assess the usefulness of the novel abbreviated MR (AB-MR) protocol in the screening of women with an intermediate risk of breast cancer. Sixty women with a Tyrer-Cuzick model-determined intermediate risk of breast cancer underwent AB-MR, mammography, and tomosynthesis examinations; as an auxiliary procedure, ultrasound imaging was carried out. Every modality was allocated a final BI-RADS category. Time spent on acquisition and interpretation was also noted. Pathological confirmation was obtained in all cases exhibiting malignant findings. The difference in sensitivity and specificity between the two modalities was evaluated using McNemar's test.
resultsWhen compared to traditional screening methods, AB-MR demonstrated 100% NPV, 98% specificity, 66.7% PPV, and 100% sensitivity in women with intermediate risk of breast cancer. Comparing mammography/ultrasound to positive malignancies verified by biopsy, the results indicated 100% sensitivity, 96.5% specificity, 60% PPV, and 100% NPV. Complete agreement was observed between abbreviated MR and malignant biopsies (100% sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV). For AB-MR and mammography, the average reading time was 4 min and 5 min, respectively. The average acquisition time for AB-MRI was around 10 min, whereas the average time for complete MR imaging is 17 min.
conclusionAB-MR has better sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV in screening of intermediate- and high-risk breast cancer. Acquisition time was shorter than full MR protocol. Reading time was decreased in respect of mammography. MRI screening ought to be more practical with the AB-MR protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40072806What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.